Thank you, Mr President. Distinguished members of the Parliamentary Assembly,
distinguished Secretary General, ladies and gentlemen, it is obviously
a great pleasure to be with you today, before this esteemed Assembly.
It is also an honour to address you on the day on which the official commemoration
of the 60th anniversary of the Council of Europe is to take place.

Let me emphasise right from the outset that I consider this
Parliamentary Assembly to be a particularly important body in the
international framework. The Parliamentary Assembly of the Council
of Europe is the bedrock of legitimacy of the political work of
the Council of Europe. We have to understand that Europe does not
have a single constituency – a single demos. Europe consists of
peoples and nations. Each has its own demos. Therefore, it is extremely
important that the authentic representatives of those different
peoples come together, work together and provide the basis of legitimacy
for everything else that happens in the Organisation.

I would like to take this opportunity to congratulate Mr Thorbjørn
Jagland on his election this week as Secretary General of the Council
of Europe. We now have a Secretary General who measures up to our
hopes. He, in turn, has a great challenge ahead of him. He can count
on my support, and, I am convinced, the support of all member states
of the Council of Europe.

The arrival of a Secretary General to any organisation brings
a certain momentum and with it heightened optimism for the future.
This momentum must be taken advantage of. We all have a shared responsibility
in facing the challenges ahead of us.

I take this responsibility with a great sense of engagement,
but also confidence. My own interest in the activities of the Council
of Europe is genuine. It has been nurtured throughout my work as
a human rights activist and an international law professor, and
in my diplomatic and political life. In all my functions, I have
striven to strengthen the core values defended by this Organisation,
be it at the national level or through my work at the United Nations.

I agree with those who consider that an anniversary should
provide an occasion to look forward and to contemplate how best
to shape the future. However, we cannot look to the future without
understanding the past.

From its inception after the gruelling years of the Second
World War to these first years of the 21st century, the challenges
and difficulties that modern society brings have always characterised
the work of the Council of Europe, which has been a witness both
to dramatic events and gradual changes and has shown the strength and
flexibility to adapt accordingly. It has played an essential role
in bringing unity and security to the European continent. Most importantly,
it has served as a bulwark of the core values of Europe: human rights,
democracy and the rule of law.

Twenty years ago, the fall of the Berlin Wall and the Iron
Curtain was an important milestone for the Council of Europe. It
provided the Organisation with a very particular role, as the organisation
most appropriate to welcome yet another wave of new democracies
and construct a new and greater Europe. It rose to the challenge
and huge advances were made.

Today, we are 47 European states bound together to defend
those crucial values which are ours – democracy, human rights and
the rule of law. This is indeed a feat worthy of celebration. However,
the family is not yet complete, and I look forward to the day when
Belarus will be in a position to join our number.

We must also recognise that the ultimate vision of the founding
fathers of the Organisation – a Europe united around common values
– is still not fully realised.

We have only to look at our recent past, where we witnessed
serious and sometimes devastating clashes and conflicts within the
borders of the Council of Europe. We all have horrible memories
and images in our mind, especially those of us who were witnesses
to, and sometimes victims of, wars in south-east Europe.

We are also aware that some areas of our greater Europe are
yet to find a solution to unresolved conflicts and find peace and
unity within their territories or with their neighbours. My own
country, Slovenia, has known such difficult times. It has been a
close witness of fighting and destruction in the region of south‑east
Europe. However, it has also seen how such disputes can be, as they
must, and are, overcome. I would therefore insist that the pursuit
of a united Europe, where dividing lines have really been erased,
should remain the priority of the Council of Europe.

Today’s world is an uncertain one. The Organisation has adapted
to past challenges, but it must remain vigilant and flexible. Be
prepared to address new phenomenums and changing circumstances.
The Organisation should not take its acquis for
granted. It must be active and confident in its capacity to adapt
and defend those values and standards, which are fundamental to
the security of our common European home.

The 3rd Summit of Heads of State and Government paved the
political path for the Council of Europe reaffirming its core objective
of preserving and promoting human rights, democracy and the rule
of law. That is where the expertise of the Council of Europe lies.
Pushing forward this objective is therefore essential for the sake
of our 800 million citizens, whose interests are at the heart of
the mission of the Organisation.

Looking to the future, we can build on the valuable tools
of the Council of Europe that have been developed in the last six
decades. The Organisation brings together 47 governments. It houses
our Assembly and your extensive collective experience as our citizens’
elected representatives. Let us never underestimate the importance
of the citizens’ elected representatives. The basis of the Council
of Europe and its mission is the citizen, and citizens’ elected
representatives have to have a lead role in shaping the strategy
and vision for the Council of Europe.

The Congress provides a unique forum for local and regional
authorities, which is another dimension of the Council of Europe.
Their role is essential at the grass-roots level. That adds to the
importance of the concept of the citizen, as well as practical meaning.

The Organisation has carved out a unique place for non-governmental
organisations within its walls. That is another important dimension
that adds to the legitimacy of the Organisation. The Office of the
Commissioner for Human Rights, 10 years after its creation, is a
well-reputed and most appreciated institution. We need human rights
activism and we need initiative. The Commissioner for Human Rights
is the embodiment of that need.

The Council of Europe is indeed a multi-faceted organisation,
but it is the richness of its structures that adds to its effectiveness
and uniqueness. Finally, the European Court of Human Rights is,
as we all know, the jewel in the Council of Europe’s crown. However,
that jewel needs to keep its shine and must therefore receive our constant
and focused attention. We all agree the Court is one of a kind.
It is crucial in ensuring that our citizens are guaranteed their
fundamental rights. However, the Court is still desperately struggling
with its caseload, not surprisingly after the expansion in number
of the members of the Council of Europe. The measures recently decided
by the member states in Madrid, including the adoption of Protocol
No. 14 bis which has entered into force today, are of course to
be welcomed but are not sufficient. Ensuring the long-term effectiveness
of this mechanism remains a priority.

The greatest support that member states can give to the Court
is to work tirelessly to improve human rights protection at the
national level. It is within states that violations of human rights
occur and it is within states where violations have to be remedied
and effective preventive action must be taken. Each member state
must strive fully to respect its commitments and this includes not
only implementing the judgments of the Court but paying the required
attention to the many conventions, conclusions and recommendations
of the other monitoring mechanisms of the Council of Europe, and
bodies such as the European Commission against Racism and Intolerance,
the European Committee for the Prevention of Torture and Inhuman
or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, the European Committee of
Social Rights, the Group of Experts on Action against Trafficking
in Human Beings and the Advisory Committee to the Framework Convention
for the Protection of National Minorities. All these bodies contribute
to the strengthening of human rights provisions and guarantees on
home ground, but decisive action must take place in member states
and you, as parliamentarians, can make a critical contribution to
that.

Education and awareness-raising, the promotion of tolerance
and non-discrimination, ethnic pluralism and integration of immigrants
are all indispensable in order to cultivate a human rights culture
in all our member states. We need informed citizens, individuals
who are aware of our values and principles and willing to promote
them in order to firmly root them in the ground. Promoting an active
citizenship in an era of globalisation is certainly one of the major
challenges ahead of us, and the Council of Europe has a distinctive role
to play in that respect. The future of Europe lies not in consumerism,
but in responsible, active and decisive citizens. Rhetoric must
become reality and responsibility should be assumed by us all –
heads of state, governments, parliamentarians, local and regional
authorities and indeed NGOs.

Fundamental as it is, the nature of the work of the Council
of Europe does not always lend itself to attracting the attention
of the press or other publicity agents. The press itself is part
of the consumer society and the ideology of consumption. It is therefore
important that we, who are fully cognisant of the value of the Council of
Europe, make the effort to promote it.

My aim today was not to enter into complex discussions on
specific issues relating to human rights, democracy and the rule
of law, the defence of which is close to our hearts. You will have
sensed from my remarks how important I consider these issues to
be and how basic they are to the future of Europe and the world.
Today, I simply wish to pay tribute to the Council of Europe, an
Organisation which has thrived for over 60 years now, labouring,
sometimes thanklessly, sometimes almost invisibly, to bring democratic
peace, security and unity to our continent. We must not rest on
the laurels of past achievements. The future may not always be easy,
but it is our collective responsibility to ensure that the Council
of Europe, our home of democracy, continues its necessary work and,
as the ultimate watchdog for human rights on our continent, continues
to be effective.

I hope that will continue to be the future of the Council
of Europe and I thank you for your attention.

Thank you
very much, Mr Türk, for your most interesting statement. Members
of the Assembly have expressed a wish to put questions to you.

The first question is from Mr Santini on behalf of the Group
of the European People’s Party.

Mr SANTINI (Italy) (interpretation)

said that Mr Türk
had emphasised with conviction the value of cohesion between peoples. Taking
this forward was a sensitive process which could occur only gradually:
security issues were sensitive and the views of those concerned
had to be taken into account.

Slovenia was Italy’s neighbour in the south of Europe. Many
Italians felt that Italy had been the target of flows of immigrants
which were, of course, difficult to control. What, then, were Mr Türk’s
comments on borders and border policy?

Mr Türk, President of Slovenia

I fully agree with the philosophy of the question. Cohesion
in Europe is extremely important for our future, but it has to be
constructed gradually and through the effective solving of problems.
One of the fundamental problems has been and will be the question
of immigration. Traditionally, Europe has been an area of emigration,
but some parts of Europe have had more experience with immigration. However,
immigration as a pervasive phenomenon is relatively recent and European
governments and institutions do not have a well-developed set of
policies, let alone a common philosophy, on this matter. We feel
that deficit on a daily basis.

Some countries are facing this problem every day and some
are less exposed. I suggest that we need concentrated action and
to share our experience. The Council of Europe can be of critical
importance in that respect. When it comes to the European Union
and its policies, execution will take time and will be characterised
by differences of opinion. The Council of Europe includes members
such as Switzerland, with a long experience of immigration. It has
not always found immigration the easiest problem to address, but
on the whole it has been successful. Similarly, we must learn from
relatively new members of the EU and their immigration policies
before they became members. From the richness of diverse national
experiences, we need to learn the best possible lessons and use
them in the formulation of our common European policy.

Today, I do not wish to enter into specific questions about
immigration or particular situations, and I know that Italy is in
a particularly sensitive place in Europe as it is – I use the word
cautiously – exposed in different directions. As far as Slovenia
is concerned, we are taking the question of immigration very seriously.
We are an open society, and also an orderly society, and I believe
that Italy and Slovenia will be able to develop a constructive and
useful partnership in the future.

Mr GROSS (Switzerland)

Mr Türk,
thank you for your speech. We took it as encouragement for the Council of
Europe. I would like you to share with us your ideas on how the
Council of Europe can encourage United Nations reform. Just a few
weeks ago, we had a conflict between ministers, ambassadors and parliamentarians,
and we pushed each other to another level. That shows how important
parliamentarians can be. That is why I would be really interested
to hear how you, as someone with great know-how about the United Nations,
think that we can be a source of input into the United Nations.

Mr Türk, President of Slovenia

Thank you for the question, Mr Gross. Obviously, it is good
that the Council of Europe and its parliamentarians think about
global issues, too, because Europe has never thought of itself as
an isolated place in the world. It has to interact with the rest
of the world, and it has to inspire, wherever that is possible.

To come specifically to the question of the Council of Europe
as a possible source of inspiration to the United Nations, I shall
mention two examples, although there are many more. You mentioned
one of them yourself: the whole experience of the strengthening
of the parliamentary role within the Council of Europe. We have
to be aware that the role of the parliamentarian dimension has not
stayed the same since the beginning. There was an assembly called
the Consultative Assembly of the Council of Europe, which had a
rather limited consultative purpose. Now we have a Parliamentary
Assembly. As I emphasised in my statement, it is important that
we understand the basis of legitimacy that that very fact brings,
and that we understand the weight of the recommendations made by
the Parliamentary Assembly, which are special precisely because
the parliamentarians represent the people of the Council of Europe.

Furthermore, taking advantage of recent experiences and discussions
held in the past month, I would say that the United Nations still
lacks a parliamentary dimension. It does not have a consultative,
let alone parliamentary, assembly. Of course, one might say that
the United Nations is a much more open organisation, and parliamentary
democracy is not something that the United Nations has put at the
centre of its system, but things are changing. We have seen changes
over the past 20 years that certainly call for a parliamentary branch
of the United Nations. Perhaps there could be a consultative body
to start with, a body that is open to all those member states of
the United Nations who would like to express their parliamentary
dimension more clearly and with more focus.

I should like to mention another area, one that has proven
sensitive for the Council of Europe for many decades, but is now
a much more daily and normal consideration: the issue of minorities.
There was a time when the Council of Europe was not able to deal
with the issue of minorities in all its dimensions, but that is
in the past. Now, with the various instruments that we have adopted,
and the work of the expert bodies, that has changed. The United
Nations is not moving at the same pace, although the problems are
such that they require much more sophisticated treatment than they
currently receive.

The United Nations too often waits for ethnic tensions to
degenerate into open armed conflict before it is dealt with by one
of its organs. That is far too late. Things have to be addressed
much earlier, and there have to be structures that allow that to
take place. That is not happening, and perhaps the Council of Europe,
with its current expertise and its historical experience, can be
of help. Those are two examples that I can quote today. There are
many more, Mr President, but if we wanted to discuss them, we would
need to organise a special conference.

THE PRESIDENT

That is
a good suggestion. Thank you. I give the floor to Mr Kox on behalf
of the Group of the Unified European Left.

Mr KOX (Netherlands)

Mr Türk,
thank you for praising our Council of Europe. In doing so, you are
in line with all the other presidents and prime ministers who come
here and declare their love for our Organisation, but why is it
then so hard to put your money where your love is? If you love us
so much, why do you starve our budgets, and why do you allow the
European Union to take over ever more of our responsibilities, with
its own assemblies for southern and northern countries, and its
agencies on human rights? Could you give us a clear signal of your
true love for our Organisation?

Mr Türk, President of Slovenia

Thank you, Mr Kox. I would like to start my response on a
slightly more philosophical note. Love, as you know, is a complicated
emotion, and it would therefore take a lot of time to discuss it
in all its dimensions, but you mentioned two of those dimensions.
One is the budgetary dimension, and the other is the question of
competences, which of course arises any time that one links love
and politics.

On the budget, Slovenia is a relatively new country, and I
must admit very openly that we have not yet fully adjusted to the
fact that we are contributing to a number of international organisations.
We need to go through a long education period. I say that with a
degree of self-criticism, because as President, I could perhaps
do more. As someone who has worked in the United Nations, I understand
things better, perhaps, than many of my compatriots. There is always
a problem when it comes to how to contribute to international organisations, because
we are not yet used to doing so. Of course, other countries are
richer, older and have more experience, and they could perhaps be
more aggressive, in the sense of providing funds.

Secondly, the EU and its evolution is an important matter
to discuss. There is a process under way right now. There was a
time, years ago in another period, when a special Committee of Wise
Men was established to look into those relations. We have a similar
need now, partly for the reasons that you mentioned. I am not sure
about all the different initiatives that expand the work load within
the European Union; one has to consider that.

Above all, I am slightly concerned about an issue that I mentioned
at the beginning of my statement – legitimacy. The European Union
has a basis of legitimacy through, obviously, the international
treaties that constitute it, but it certainly needs more if it is
to be really able to express the opinion of the peoples of the European
Union in its work. We should not be satisfied with what we have
now. The German Federal Constitutional Court, which is often mentioned
these days, has addressed the question of what it termed structural
democratic deficits. We have to look into that problem as well.
I am sure that the Council of Europe can help the European Union
on that, and this Parliamentary Assembly could be of importance
in that regard. The legitimacy issue within the European Union has
to be discussed in a much more focused way.

Mrs GAUTIER (France) (interpretation)

said that in 1992,
one year after its independence, Slovenia had withdrawn the residency
status of a large number of people of Romany descent. Such action
had been against the Slovenian Constitution. What measures would
the President take to address this injustice?

Mr Türk, President of Slovenia

Thank you for your question. You touched on one of the core
problems as regards human rights in Slovenia. During the first year
of my tenure, which was last year, I went to the parliament in April
and made a strong plea for constitutionality. I was very concerned
by the fact that the governmental bodies and the parliament were
not implementing the decisions of the Constitutional Court. As you
rightly emphasised, the nature of that measure that is called “erasure”
– which led to the change of status of a large number of people
– was anti-constitutional. It was not only a matter of human rights
standards in general, but was a problem caused by our constitutionality.

The Constitutional Court made its pronouncement and until
recently our problem was that that was not implemented. As I have
said, four months after my election I went to the parliament and
made a strong plea for change. There was a change at the end of
last year and the government has started the process of individual decisions
to take care of each individual who is affected by the decisions
of the past. This process is ongoing, and the government has expressed
a firm commitment to it. There has been very detailed and tough
discussion in the parliament, and the government stayed the course.
I have every confidence that it will continue to do so. When that
part of the process is finished, we will have to see whether there
is the need for another piece of legislation or any other act that
would completely remedy the situation.

We are in the process of remedying every single case. We have
to look into the individual circumstances. This is a change in policy
and an improvement for the individual people affected. I hope that
we will be able to stay the course – I am sure that we will – until
the very end.

M. HARUTYUNYAN (Arménie)

I want to express
my admiration for the efforts of the Slovenian chairmanship of the
Council of Europe. Two days ago, we elected our Secretary General
after months of intensive debate. However, the European Union paid
conspicuously little attention to this event. Should that tell us
something about the role of the Council of Europe, particularly
as regards the EU member states? How successful do you think that
you were in your presidency of the European Union in attracting
the attention of your colleagues among the European Union member
states to the Council’s agenda?

Mr Türk, President of Slovenia

As far as relations between the Council of Europe and the
European Union are concerned, I expressed my view in answer to an
earlier question. Let me emphasise that there are two key areas
in which we need to improve our performance. One concerns the specific
issues on the agenda of the two organisations and the other concerns
the basis of legitimacy. We must work on both of these areas. As
far as Slovenia is concerned, we have done our part to some extent
during our presidency of the European Union in the first half of
2008. We had some programmes at the time that put some of the matters
that are important to the Council of Europe at the forefront of
the European Union. Ethnic issues were among them. These matters
require a long-term commitment and the best way to make real progress
would be to put them on the agenda of two organisations. We could
perhaps have a discussion on an independent report and could figure out
specific conclusions.

I do not think that individual presidencies can do much more.
The system in the European Union is predetermined by a number of
decisions from the past so it is very difficult to add much more
that is new or to add another dimension. That would be the basis
of my sense of where the process should go in the future.

Mrs LAVTIŽAR-BEBLER (Slovenia)

Mr President,
in Europe there is an urgent problem of growing immigration, and
in particular illegal immigration. How do you see the role of the
Council of Europe in dealing with that problem while still safeguarding
human rights, which is the main mission of our Organisation?

Mr Türk, President of Slovenia

I am happy that you mentioned human rights in that context,
because obviously the first item on the agenda is the protection
of the human rights of every individual, including those who enter
the countries of the Council of Europe from other parts of the world.
That has to be addressed in the ways that the Council of Europe
has already established. There is a wider policy issue on which
I would like to elaborate further. It is the question of attitudes
towards migration in the 21st century.

Some countries of the world, such as the United States, Australia
and New Zealand, have incorporated large numbers of immigrants and
have developed very good models of integration while at the same
time respecting the human rights of every individual and the cultural
identities of different groups. I fully understand that these issues
are complex and sensitive, but Europe has to do more. We have to
be better in our immigration policies. That applies not only to
the European Union but to countries that are not members of the
European Union.

Let me give you an example that shows an aspect of the policy
dilemma. How does one improve the upwards social mobility of immigrants
who have entered a country legally or who have legalised their presence
after immigrating? Let us address that part of the population; one
could call it the easier part. What does one do to ensure that they
have access to good-quality education and jobs, that they are integrated
and that they can then move upwards? How do we guarantee upwards
social mobility? We still have too much marginalisation and ghettoisation.

Critical decisions are in the hands of national governments.
They are not made by larger organisations. We have to think about
this much more thoroughly and find solutions. Europe as a whole
is ageing and we need immigration. Immigration is not only a problem
– it is part of the solution for the future of Europe. Policies
that can be put in place have to be discussed seriously and solutions
have to be found.

Perhaps we could do more to identify success stories. Perhaps
we can build on them, wherever they are. Europe may not have enough
success stories and if that is the case we have to look to other
countries that we have traditionally seen as being countries of
immigration, as they are overseas. They have developed experiences
that can be of help to Europe today. That is a major policy challenge
for all European governments and institutions. Perhaps the Council
of Europe can play its part in identifying policy issues, and not
only general principles and matters to do with human rights. Those
policy issues can be addressed fully and policies can be formulated
with the necessary sense of detail. That is all that I would like
to say on this occasion.

Mr DÍAZ TEJERA (Spain) (interpretation)

noted that the
Council of Europe was celebrating its 60th anniversary, and asked what
advice President Türk would give to the Assembly on how it should
seek to protect the human rights of some European citizens who were
currently suffering human rights abuses.

Mr Türk, President of Slovenia

The Council of Europe has already proven to be a unique institution
in that regard. Obviously, if one looks at the system as a whole,
one will see that the central element, the European Court of Human
Rights, has its own problems. Those problems will have to be addressed
and resolved. I am looking forward to the conference in Interlaken
that will pursue that issue. I would not like to go into that matter because
your question was not directed to issues that categorise the typical
cases before the Court, although massive and more flagrant violations
can also enter the Court’s process.

If one looks into torture and other aspects, one will see
that the Council of Europe has had important successes in combating
torture. I take as an example atrocious, fundamental violations
of human rights. We must take stock of everything done so far and
see where new additional instruments may be needed. I am not sure whether
we need so many new instruments, because the basic violations have
been identified and addressed. One has to look at the effectiveness
of the work of the current bodies.

To continue to use the example of the torture committee, it
would be useful to look at that committee from the point of view
of geographical focus. Sometimes cases of torture are reported,
sometimes they are not. Some cultures tolerate torture more than
others. I believe that we need a sensitive discussion as to where
the current regional focus should be. I do not wish to go further.
I do not wish to blame anyone for anything, but I would like to
take the positive experience of the anti-torture activities of the
Council of Europe as an excellent example of how a mechanism can
make a difference. That matter needs to remain a priority. It needs
to be considered from the point of view of future geographic orientation
and geographic priorities.

THE PRESIDENT (translation)

Thank you.
That concludes the questions.

I thank you, Mr Türk, for pursuing the Slovenian Presidency
of our institution and for your work in person. I thank you in particular
for your unstinting support since our visit to Ljubljana and following
that your presence here over the summer. I thank you for your interesting
statement and the answers that you were kind enough to give to the
questions put to you. We now have a much clearer idea of your view
of the world and our part in it.